Death Justice: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and the Contradictions of the Death Penalty

Justice Scalia has warned of the danger of fallacies that pass for truth simply because they are frequently repeated. Death Justice argues that one fallacy that passes for truth is the widely held notion that Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas applied a fixed standard - itself based on a fixed meaning of the Constitution - to death penalty cases. In defiance of their judicial rhetoric, their conclusions simply defy their, or any, conception of consistency. And without a logical, consistent foundation, their findings on the death penalty come to resemble little more than personal political preferences. More to the point, the contradictory arguments of the three justices have contributed to a unique public policy that exists outside the bounds of the normal limits of American politics. Thanks in part to Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, on the death penalty the U.S. stands far apart from its allies and quite close to its enemies.

Justice Scalia has warned of the danger of fallacies that pass for truth simply because they are frequently repeated. Death Justice argues that one fallacy that passes for truth is the widely held notion that Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas applied a fixed standard - itself based on a fixed meaning of the Constitution - to death penalty cases. In defiance of their judicial rhetoric, their conclusions simply defy their, or any, conception of consistency. And without a logical, consistent foundation, their findings on the death penalty come to resemble little more than personal political preferences. More to the point, the contradictory arguments of the three justices have contributed to a unique public policy that exists outside the bounds of the normal limits of American politics. Thanks in part to Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, on the death penalty the U.S. stands far apart from its allies and quite close to its enemies.